A bill that will allow homes to be searched without a warrant was passed with overwhelming support by the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Trump—and it happened with no media coverage and very little fanfare.

On the surface, House Joint Resolution 76 looks harmless. The title of the bill claims that its purpose is “Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.”

“Whereas the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, an interstate compact agency of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland, provides transportation services to millions of people each year, the safety of whom is paramount; Whereas an effective and safe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capital region; Whereas the Tri-State Oversight Committee, created by a memorandum of understanding amongst these 3 jurisdictions, has provided safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.”
The proposal for a safety commission to act as a wing of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority may sound logical, when its power includes thing such as the ability to “Adopt, revise, and distribute a written State Safety Oversight Program” and to “Review, approve, oversee, and enforce the adoption and implementation of WMATA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.”

However, there is one major red flag buried within the text of the bill that stems from the list of “powers” given to the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, and it violates one of the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution.

“In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may:Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass.”

The text gives the Commission the authority to enter property near the Metro Rail System “without limitation” and without a warrant, for the purpose of “making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing.”

This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

When the bill was brought to a vote in the House of Representatives, there were only five Congressmen who voted against it: Representatives Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan; Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina; Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky; Alex Mooney, a Republican from West Virginia; and Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.

26th August 2017, 12:21 PM

Spookycolt

Its not really any different than a search warrant, its actually a bit stricter.

It just cuts out the need for a judge.

However I'm sure it will be challenged the first time it happens. If I were a lawyer I would be waiting for this case.

The law also only says they can't be charged for trespass, it says nothing about illegal search and seizure so they need to be really, really careful.

They can't just bust into someone's home and they have to wait, unlike a search warrant which is immediate.

26th August 2017, 12:25 PM

ptif219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spookycolt

Its not really any different than a search warrant, its actually a bit stricter.

It just cuts out the need for a judge.

However I'm sure it will be challenged the first time it happens. If I were a lawyer I would be waiting for this case.

The law also only says they can't be charged for trespass, it says nothing about illegal search and seizure so they need to be really, really careful.

They can't just bust into someone's home and they have to wait, unlike a search warrant which is immediate.

What is amazing is the Democrats voting for it. The democrats agree with GOP when it goes against the constitution yet here all we hare is how they love the constitution. The democrats are spinning in circles.

26th August 2017, 12:28 PM

Spookycolt

Well they voted for the NDAA didn't they?

Not sure why Trump signed it unless he is in the process of making deals with congress.

Give them a bunch of stuff like this to get his wall.

That type of thing.

26th August 2017, 12:28 PM

Dangermouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptif219

What is amazing is the Democrats voting for it. The democrats agree with GOP when it goes against the constitution yet here all we hare is how they love the constitution. The democrats are spinning in circles.

The only thing I see apart from their exploding heads is righties such as yourself rotating at supersonic speed. The GOP majority congress presented this bill and voted for it, but you guys want to blame the democrsts for it.

26th August 2017, 12:30 PM

Spookycolt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dangermouse

The only thing I see apart from their exploding heads is righties such as yourself rotating at supersonic speed. The GOP majority congress presented this bill and voted for it, but you guys want to blame the democrsts for it.

No, we are saying its blowing up the left talking point that the democrats are resisting the republicans.

They apparently aren't.

26th August 2017, 12:48 PM

ptif219

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dangermouse

The only thing I see apart from their exploding heads is righties such as yourself rotating at supersonic speed. The GOP majority congress presented this bill and voted for it, but you guys want to blame the democrsts for it.

What other bill have the democrats agreed with GOP on? They only agree on take away freedoms. Just have to love those Washington establishment types

26th August 2017, 01:28 PM

Macduff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spookycolt

Its not really any different than a search warrant, its actually a bit stricter.

It just cuts out the need for a judge.

However I'm sure it will be challenged the first time it happens. If I were a lawyer I would be waiting for this case.

The law also only says they can't be charged for trespass, it says nothing about illegal search and seizure so they need to be really, really careful.

They can't just bust into someone's home and they have to wait, unlike a search warrant which is immediate.

Huh? Is that all? It cuts out the entire aspect of accountability that a warrant has. NBD.

26th August 2017, 01:33 PM

Wonderer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macduff

Huh? Is that all? It cuts out the entire aspect of accountability that a warrant has. NBD.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

26th August 2017, 01:47 PM

BitterPill

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptif219

Democrats found something they could vote with GOP for. Taking away constitutional rights